All of the Hot Air fell out of Obamas Speech: Unemployment Rate 8.1% ...96,000 Jobs Added?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by burntheships

 

Welcome to the White House President Mitt Romney !

Obama left you a big mess to clean up.

Yup. The wars that costed over a trillion dollars. The lack of regulations on Wall Street that collapsed the economy.

Oh wait, that was Bush.

Perhaps Obama should talk to an empty chair?

"Well Mister chair...Make my day...Yes We Can...sort of....if we try...I think....I am the greatest...."

At our current pace of growth we are essentially moving backward and Obama is an intelligent enough man to know that. This in mind, his 'Forward' slogan is nothing short of frightening.

Originally posted by UnBreakable
IMHO Bill Clinton gave a better speech and is probably more knowledgeable and coherent than Clint within the context of convention speeches.

Dude, a speech by a former serial politician (and known for other serial *******) means nothing.
Clinton is a die hard Dem, he would say anything do anyting for the party line.

This is not a Rebublican issue, its not a Democrat issue.
If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.

Just where does Obama fit in?

He fits within that big fat O. O as in zero recovery, O jobs O growth.

OMG
Obama Must Go!

Originally posted by snusfanatic
At our current pace of growth we are essentially moving backward and Obama is an intelligent enough man to know that. This in mind, his 'Forward' slogan is nothing short of frightening.

I agree his "forward" and "change" might be something quite different than what we might want it to be... So far it sure the hell has been for me....

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Yup. The wars that costed over a trillion dollars. The lack of regulations on Wall Street that collapsed the economy.

Oh wait, that was Bush.

I think it is safe now to say that Obama has eclipsed anything that Bush might have done wrong in 8 years in well under 4...even 2 years.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Yup. The wars that costed over a trillion dollars. The lack of regulations on Wall Street that collapsed the economy.

Oh wait, that was Bush.

I think it is safe now to say that Obama has eclipsed anything that Bush might have done wrong in 8 years in well under 4...even 2 years.

Sigh. The problem here is that some folks rather ignore the mess the Bush administration left when Obama was elected into office. No, the current administration isn't perfect and I wish they haven't done some of the things they have done in the past 4 years but to blame the entire economic situation on the current white house occupiers is dumb and ignorant.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

Tech changes and with it so does the cost of revamping the manufacturing process, that takes money as does expanding the company through new facilities.

Another example if I may?

I work part time for a local logistics company. They pay me roughly $400.00 a week after taxes. And I am at the lowest level of the workforce there…a dockworker. Non-Union BTW.

Could they improve? Sure, but that would cost money which would take away from their profit sharing. This company provides just the basic tools to get the job done, nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, it’s annoying, knowing that this company can improve their operations…but truth be told, they don’t really need to. They are making a profit and expanding as well. They’re very competitive in their business model.

That is the route I think that the Government needs to take.

Make do with what you have, and when you can afford it, expand. But only when you can afford it. when you start to take hits…downsize.

We cannot as taxpayers afford the current size of Government anymore. It's basic math. The sooner people wake up to that, the better off we'll be.

I do not understand how any of that would create jobs. Want an example? Where I work, every new machine is one less person needed. Could they improve and fully automate, yep! If they got a huge tax break they just might. And then they could lay everyone but maintenance off.

What tax paid for improvements at your job would create new jobs without a rise in customer demand?

reply to post by wascurious


It's logistics. Until they develop automated trucks and trains, people are needed in that industry.

The company really hasn't changed their business model or the way they conduct day to day operations since being founded and they are still expanding. They keep things at the basic level to get the job done economically and profitable.

We need to return the Gov't back to the basic level, is all I am saying.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Sigh. The problem here is that some folks rather ignore the mess the Bush administration left when Obama was elected into office. No, the current administration isn't perfect and I wish they haven't done some of the things they have done in the past 4 years but to blame the entire economic situation on the current white house occupiers is dumb and ignorant.

I do understand....I do understand that Obama's 800 billon stimulus had about as much stimulus as if they burned it to keep warm.

Bush = 1 trillion over eight years and a good part of that spending I agreed with...a good part I didn't. Obama 800 billon plus in one to two years.... neither really did us any good, well we could say our security was better after Bush's spending.

It is funny we are also talking about BUSH's tax cuts that the Dems want to keep too....

The problem I have with Obama is he doesn't know how to fix it, or worst what he thinks will fix it will not. He has dumped billions into failed programs/companies.... he has totally wasted our taxes and doesn't care or even talk about it. Hitting 16 trillion his same response is like "we are on a rough road" well he add 5 trillion to it so I think he now owns that rough road.

He as failed so miserably with economics that we totally overlook his other failures. Didn't he say "transparent Government", This is actually even a bigger failure as how far he went with his totally non- transparent Government that we see today. This is a huge topic all in itself that we don't even talk about with such the economic crises we face with him at the wheel.

So for me, I can vote for a guy who list community organizer as his primary job in the past or one that was a successful CEO. The hype around Bain Capital is what it is, hype. The bottom line is Romney could take a FAILING company and turn it around into a successful company. He had about a 8% failure rate where they lost all investments, and about 20% of the 77 companies they worked with still headed off into bankruptcy after all said and done, but no one talks about how many of those companies are doing well today that would have closed their doors years ago, and most of those bankruptcies are around the post-2000 economic downturn that saw a lot of bankruptcies.

So let's compare this to Obama's CEO experiences....we can't

So as Governor...

Quote

During his term he presided over the elimination of a projected $3 billion deficit by reducing state funding for higher education, cutting state aid to cities and towns, raising various fees, and removing corporate tax loopholes; Massachusetts also benefited from unanticipated federal grants and unexpected revenue from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase. He helped develop, and signed into law, the Massachusetts health care reform legislation.

Can't say that was a bad run for the guy..... and once again we can't compare any of this to some kind of related experience...Obama has none.

Became the CEO of the 2002 Olympics and before he took the position, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks, but ended up 100 million in the black. He donated 1 million into it and his 1.7 million pay check back into it too after being the CEO for 3 years....

Once again I'm sure Obama has some huge community organization that we can compare this to....please provide...

The bottom line is Obama has spent four years trying to learn what it takes and is basically saying OK now I think I got it...where Romney has a proven successful track record in everything he does and so he not only knows what it takes, BUT has 25 years of success to prove it.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Actually, Romney was successful because he destroyed companies. He is a con artist. He is a the definition of a sleaze ball politician as well.

If you're willing to vote for someone who's going to rape your finances and give tax cuts to his wealthy friends, then goddamn, I feel so sorry for you.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by wascurious

 

It's logistics. Until they develop automated trucks and trains, people are needed in that industry.

The company really hasn't changed their business model or the way they conduct day to day operations since being founded and they are still expanding. They keep things at the basic level to get the job done economically and profitable.

We need to return the Gov't back to the basic level, is all I am saying.

edit on 9-9-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

You did not actually address my point even a little. Sure they still need people to drive trucks. What they do not need is dockworkers. That can all be automated. Of course not every job can be replaced a machine.

You still have not explained how a company is going to take money to improve itself and somehow create more jobs. Why can't you address this?

Originally posted by UnBreakable
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

...........and I guess Romney will come in and everyone will have a job again. Face it, this is a global thing. We're all screwed no matter who is POTUS. I hope Romney does get elected. Within two years when things are worse, I'll laugh when all the haters long for the days of Obama.

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Obama can't even pass a budget with his own party in control.....FOR TWO YEARS.

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by wascurious

 

It's logistics. Until they develop automated trucks and trains, people are needed in that industry.

The company really hasn't changed their business model or the way they conduct day to day operations since being founded and they are still expanding. They keep things at the basic level to get the job done economically and profitable.

We need to return the Gov't back to the basic level, is all I am saying.

edit on 9-9-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

You did not actually address my point even a little. Sure they still need people to drive trucks. What they do not need is dockworkers. That can all be automated. Of course not every job can be replaced a machine.

You still have not explained how a company is going to take money to improve itself and somehow create more jobs. Why can't you address this?

Where I work, the dockworkers are indispensible. Automation would be too costly. Most logistics companies do not warehouse things, they transport them through their terminals. Item X is manufactured, then transported to terminal A where it switches trucks, then transported to terminal B and so on until it reaches its destination. At my terminal we have ten forklifts and another ten people with pallet jacks and no one sits around. It’s a very busy place. We transport everything from carnival toys to heavy duty industrial equipment. Often on the same trailer.

We are also non union and are payed competitive rates.

This company is building new terminals as they expand which creates new jobs in that town. I would think that this is self evident. Building new terminals in new markets requires money as well. Which puts construction workers to work, new tax revenues for the town with which they can hire more safety forces or maintenance workers, etc.

Regarding Gov't, I retired after 30 years in the Army, during which time it has always been downsizing and the Servicemembers have been making do with less. This has been happening to all of the DoD services and continues to this day. (I talking about downsizing physically, not financially, which is another thread I'm working on)

Meanwhile the government keeps expanding. Technically, they are creating jobs, but those jobs are paid by the taxpayer, of which are becoming fewer. It's like the snake eating its own tail.

For instance, if you eliminate the Department of Education, schools would be forced to privatize, which studies have shown to give our kids better teachers and make a profit.

By doing so, we would also eliminate a bloated bureaucracy that really doesn’t accomplish much, and even when it does, it is at the pace of a snail.

Smart start-ups would now see a vacuum and attempt to fill it with a leaner model. As they expand, more jobs are created as well.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Actually, Romney was successful because he destroyed companies. He is a con artist. He is a the definition of a sleaze ball politician as well.

Nice talking points, got anything of real value to add?

Wait I do since you are on this topic....

Romney's investors invested 1.1 billion and successfully made 2.4 billion over 15 years... ALL of the companies were in deep trouble, they bailed them out and made them profitable again thus making the companies' stock valuable to others. Romney could only make profit if they could actually make the companies successful to the point that others would be willing to buy stock into them, so ALL of their profits were from reselling the stock after the companies were once again above water. The vast majority are still in business today doing well...20% either went bankrupt or restructured after Bain was gone, 8% while Bain still had controlling interest.

So let's look at Obama...all he says is he SAVED the auto industry.... lol really?

What he saved was the unions...he is in bed with the unions, he also let non-union workers lose their retirements while using taxes to prop-up only the union's pensions...did I say he was in bed with the unions yet...lol

Where are we today... GM is about to go bankrupt again and Chrysler was bought out by the Italians..good job OBAMA you saved them!!! Oh we the tax payers lost 25 billion in the deal...where did that money go?

Obama also helped many green companies. His idea was to dump a lot of money in them and bam they would just thrive. I mean isn't that what Ronmey did? And Obama is a lot smarter than Ronmey, just ask Obama he will tell you. Here are his success stories..

Dumping a lot of money into things without doing a dam thing else seems to be his only plan...not doing too well is it...

Amonix Solar: FAIL – manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.

Solar Trust of America: FAIL - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close.

Solyndra: FAIL - Obama gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!

LSP Energy: FAIL - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012

Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy

SunPower: FAIL – SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still struggling…

Beacon Power: FAIL – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee

Ecotality: FAIL - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama

A123 Solar: FAIL-A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M

UniSolar: FAIL - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business

Azure Dynamics: FAIL - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June ter millions in Obama “Stimulus”

Evergreen Solar: FAIL - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy

Ener1: FAIL received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012

Link

Where did all that money go? lol AND you say such things about Ronmey...

Originally posted by TDawgRex

For instance, if you eliminate the Department of Education, schools would be forced to privatize, which studies have shown to give our kids better teachers and make a profit.

Don't waste your breath, people do not understand any of this. If Romney came out and said he wanted to do away with the Department of Education to actually fix our education problems, Obama would say that Romney wants our kids to not have schools...

And all these suckers would believe him...lol...sad...

When are you all going to learn that the Government is the worst way to run anything...this is why we need to keep it small. Education is a great example of how a private school can have classrooms of about 10 students per teacher and provide everything the student needs for the same cost as public schools. In Oregon they laid off 300 teachers and the classes are 30 to 35 per teacher now....that is what happens when the system gets bloated to the point it barely runs anymore, but continues to suck more and more tax dollars every year.

Oh BTW the teachers get paid more in the private schools...

Originally posted by UnBreakable
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

With all due respect, IMHO Bill Clinton gave a better speech and is probably more knowledgeable and coherent than Clint within the context of convention speeches.

Speeches don't create jobs.

Small businesses create jobs. Obama has declared war on small businesses across America.

- Unending regulations -

-------------
Clinton gave a great sppech a long time ago " The era of big government is over!"

Jeff Neely from the GSA said 2 words. " Oh really?!"

Clinton just made Obama look like an amateur.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Yes the momemtum is in place and President Obama is in the lead by a pretty wide margin too. La la la la.
Like I said see me after the election.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Yes the momemtum is in place and President Obama is in the lead by a pretty wide margin too. La la la la.
Like I said see me after the election.

Dukakis held a very substantial lead in the polls after the Democratic National Convention.

He went on to lose.

You just never know what will happen between now and the first week of November.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by RELDDIR
"The reason for the drop is because 368,000 American gave up and dropped out of the workforce"
-That is the TRUE REALITY of things-

The timing couldn't be worse. Obama just lost all of his momentum.

He gives his speech and the very next day he gets blasted by this job report.

Who scheduled the DNC convention ???

What were they thinking ???

----------

Clearly, Obamas economic policies have failed. Everyone sees that this morning.

Problem is, your average voter, the ones who essentially "decide" the president, don't pay attention to official job reports.